Tweet.

I'm not even sure he was insensitive... Mostly he was a young teenager worried about the weird older guys his roommate was bringing into his place. This is a bullshit case.

More research later today.

I think 30 days is appropriate. Ravi deserves to be punished for what he did (invaded someone's privacy, tried to hinder the prosecution), not for what Clementi did as a result. Ravi's actions would not have driven a reasonable, stable person to suicide.

I think the lifestyle counseling thing is ridiculous. I'm not sure how I feel about bullying legislation. It seems to me that the aspects of bullying that should be illegal, already were illegal.

Crid: I'm not even sure he was insensitive...

Crid, you make this way too easy … so I'm going to pass on this opportunity, as it would look too much like the Lindsay Lohan joke I told last time.

Ravi was sentenced to 30 days in jail, community service and a 10,000 dollar fine. The judge lit into him, "I haven't heard you apologize once."

My favorite statement is this one: She [Ravi's mother] said her son is “kind-hearted and loving” and “doesn’t have any hatred in his heart towards anybody.”

Snort.

His mother isn't doing him any favors, so she really should shut up. “Dharun’s dreams are shattered and he has been living in hell for the past 20 months. As a mother, I feel Dharun has really suffered enough,” she said.

Who the hell asked her what her son's sentence should be?

Dharun Ravi’s father, Ravi Pazhani, said he did not raise Ravi to hate gays.

“We are not a homophobic family,” Pazhani said.

Look again, cupcake.

Altman said, "This case has been tried and treated and exists today as if it’s a murder case."

Oh, bullshit. When was the last time anyone convicted of murder only got thirty days? Fuck you, Altman. Bleeding heart pansy.

“He’s being demonized by the gay community,” Altman said. “They’re associating and connecting whatever he did with the death of Tyler."

Now why would anyone think there was a connection between Ravi's actions and Clementi's suicide? And some gay rights activists have stood up in support of Ravi. Way to broadbrush the whole gay community.

That said, I don't have much problem with the sentence. I don't see that Ravi did anything criminal in what he did to Tyler Clementi. Yes, Ravi is an asshole, but if that were a crime … eh, skip it. I was going to make another Crid joke.

The circumstances, the circumstances, the circumstances … This first: it's Ravi's room, too. Can you truly spy on your own room?

Did Tyler Clementi truly have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a shared room? Technically, it's not either of their rooms. They do not have homeowner's rights or even tenant's rights. They don't need to be evicted if the school wants either of them gone.

It was a mildly sick college prank. Ravi could not have anticipated Clementi's actions.

Also, doesn't the school have some kind of culpability? As I recall, Clementi did appeal to the school itself when he found out what Ravi was doing.

Looking at this as objectively as I can, I would have been happy with just community service. Clementi's suicide should not have been a deciding factor.

The only thing I have a problem with is that Ravi tampered with evidence and attempted to intimidate a witness. That is a huge no-no. When that's found out, that needs to be punished severely.

In fact, it might have been useful if the judge had said something along those lines, "You might have gotten off with community service alone, but you obstructed justice, and that needs to be punished most severely."

We do not want people thinking that if they get in trouble, the smart thing to do is destroy evidence and bully witnesses.

The sentence is appropriate. Slightly more than a slap on the wrist, less than a true you are doomed for your idiocy.

Blithering-

> Way to broadbrush the whole gay community.

It couldn't be "broadbrushed" if you weren't worried on its (presumably-coherent) behalf.

> The judge lit into him, "I haven't heard
> you apologize once."

Maybe he's not sorry. More to the point, and this has been a continuing problem for you, Judges are not our Daddy: They are not paid to scold or "light into" people, nor should we be impressed when they do.

Not the worst possible outcome though... I'd feared a lot worse.

Judges are not our Daddy: They are not paid to scold or "light into" people, nor should we be impressed when they do.

Not impressed, no. But when it happens it is entertaining.

I was present in a courtroom one fine afternoon, and had opportunity to hear a judge remark, with vigor:

"No, the problem is not your feelings. The problem is the sex abuse."

Ah. Good times.

Judges are not our Daddy: -- Crid [CridComment at gmail] at May 21, 2012 7:05 PM

I quite agree the court is not a Daddy, but neither is a mother.

I still can't find the word for word sentence from the judge, but I hope it rates with Judge McKay's sentence.

No, Cridsy, no one said that judges are our daddy. However, remorse can be a mitigating factor when the judges decide sentences.

Since the judge sees no evidence of remorse, he is allowed to make that observation. In fact, oh, cerebrally-challenged one, you could say that he is obligated to make this observation. Since both parties are going to appeal, the appellate court will certainly take such observations into consideration when deciding if the punishment is appropriate.

No charge for the legal education. Causing you to foam at the mouth over something you know nothing about is its own reward.

Actually if Ravi had been allowed to introduce the evidence that Tyler not only knew he was being watched, but had invited people in the past to watch him over the internet, the case might have gone the other way.

Selley nails it to the wall:

He was not charged with anything pertaining to the suicide, yet the suicide was the trial’s very reason for existence.

"Blithering."